Leonardo Diagnostic tool Clinic/demonstrartion

I think one problem is that with the advent of more and more electronics and computer control systems it further removes the DIY from being able to service their own vehicle. Even if the DIY had the means to acquire all the factory diagnostic equipment to interface and service the vehicle they would also need to know how to do this, the majority of DIY are not going to want to spend the time to stay up to date on all of it. Shops are not found of it either but it is a requirement to stay in business.

How many DIY are aware that going back to the Bosch 5.2 the ECU self-learned program is not lost if removed from battery power, in order for the engine to operate properly after servicing the fuel or ignition systems, or having to adjust the throttles, or the issue of cracked manifolds etc.. a diagnostic machine is a requirement to remove the adaptive values then run the vehicle for 30mins at idle to re-set the ECU self-learning adaptive values.

F1 issues and service are another animal all its own. in reality that service work is beyond the DIY's means and ability, even with an SD tester or Leonardo you're going to need to have a loads of experience dealing with the system and a very good understanding of it as well. Many shops get frustrated with F1 problems, a shop can loose money fast on those jobs.

I would not recommend changing the clutch and then driving it to a shop to set the PIS, it's not how the job is done in reality. before any screw is turned the system needs to be read and recorded, then the clutch and any associated parts replaced, highly suggested that the throwout bearing sensor is replaced as well at each clutch replacement. after it all goes back together there is a whole procedure for bleeding and the self-learning that is carried out by the factory SD or leonardo. The TCU adaptively changes as the clutch plate wears, once worn it needs to be re-set to the new clutch plate. changing the PIS alters the parametric algorithm for the contact location, done on a new clutch is OK as it is the start point, done to a worn clutch only causes more issues as the wear point is no longer on the original curve. In order to adjust the PIS it needs to be re-calculated according to the clutch plate thickness. I'll leave off here as it gets more into how the system operates and the shear amount of variables involved will give you a headache.

I don't know how a company will handle what can be put into a DIY diagnostic tool as the integrated systems and technology in vehicles today require weeks of training and hrs of classroom training on the systems.

 

Most of what you say is true, but I for one look at it as the next door to open, not a barrier. And there is nothing special about attaining that knowledge, it can be learned and shared. There is no guarantee or obligation that manufacturer will continue to support service on given models. They might, as you suggested, declare F1 jobs no longer financially wise and end the service. Look at the parts already out of production, the more talented among us need to have a body of knowledge to draw on to make replacements. The entire TCU, peak technology in 96 could almost certainly be replaced by a single Cyclone III FPGA or similar device. The Amiga computer, a one time high end machine is now emulated on one. Another example, is the short and long term trims being reset, yes I knew this, and on my Lotus I can hook up the laptop and wipe them and then relearn. That knowledge is out there, and I just need the tool to do it, and for the knowledge that has yet to surface, I want the tool to be there when it does.

 

swaping a clutch is easy, its the software that we need. So now I know the procedure, get and save the clutch information, do the clutch, reset the clutch (see, I am learning, I keep adding steps), I just need the software. And YES YES I know I am over simplifying this whole thing, I fully realize I am and I also realize I don't know more than half the steps but they are things I can learn. Someone taught the techs that do clutches now how to do it, they were not born with the knowledge, so I can learn it too. Would I spend the time to learn it or just take the car to the shop ? I don't know but I want the option and for now it looks as if that option is not going to happen.

 

+1. Spot on post....

 

I fully agree, however this is still stuff way beyond the average DIY and that is part of the problem. How many people program in C++ or homebrew their personal devices? I'll be bold and state that even within the service shops and dealers there are techs that simply R&R without an in depth knowledge of automotive engineering that the old-school guys have. Then on the flip side most of the old-school guys are not interested in the learning curve of the computer technology in vehicles today.

I personally have a background education in physics and engineering and still today try and keep current with technology and classes to stay above water. The rate of technology integration in vehicles is astounding, I know I'm not going to be able to keep pace with it at some point.

I'm not worried that the ability to maintain and service the cars will be unavailable to the DIY, it's just going to require that the DIY really start to understand what they are doing and not rely on the 'tool' to do it for them.

 

Even discussing it has pitfalls of over or under explaining your point, and smg2 I am very glad you posted your background it really helps put your comments in context. I work in/ have an education in spaceflight myself so I tend to think of a car like the 355 along the lines of satellite design. What are my sensors and what can they tell me, what are the devices I have with which to respond to the environment with and influence action, and what is the environment. A comparison is satellites could be the attitude control system. Oversimplifying you have a magnetometer and horizon sensor to determine orientation and thrusters and magnetic torque rods to make changes with a computer determining how. The previous post that smg2 made about the activities that the TCU was doing is exactly the discussion that should be going on. And how about someone marketing a tool that will give layers of access; simple, full, and streaming so that each level of user can fully utilize it.

 

Can I hear an Amen. Having a tool / and knowing how to implement it - are two very different things. Its quite a steep learning curve. I do this everyday, and I have had to lean on both of these gents for assistance ~ even with the big tools.

 

And? The tool is coming, just that no one wants to pony up the 3 large! If Leonardo could anticipate selling maybe 3-5000 of these, the price would probably lower. I am sure that kind of number is way high, despite the fact that maybe 10-12 people have expressed interest in the past on these pages. you can buy bootlegged scanners all day for most cars, any good shop will tell you just how bad and unreliable those are.

Believe us, no shop really wants to drop the 20K+, but it is a cost of staying in this business. Add on the annual subscription updates (at least they are available on a Leo) of $4K, it's not cheap. Even the Autologic, recognised as maybe the best alternative to factory, runs $9K per line plus updates.

I am sure that when the individual scanner hits the market, you will be able to purchase one from the Yong Dong Co or some such quickly thereafter that will be in the price range some want. Good luck with that!

 

You are so right Brian which is why any consumer device has to factor in how the DIY might use it. It has to be worth it to buy and slog through the learning process vs. just pay a pro to do computer tweeks on an as needed bassis. Long before there was useable OBD2 data I would keep digital traces of working sensors by my O-scope. I learned to use an O-scope from eelctronics not from automotive. Even today with all the ECM locked systems you can figure stuff out with a scope. It will be interesting to see the OEM's desire to lock the repair market by having subscription tech data online for a dealer subscription fee and locking out independants. We'll see if the OEMs destroy and monopolize the market or if indy's go back to basics and really learn their craft to stay in business. That's why Eddie made one of the most important posts on this hijack which was about doing the computer setup of the F1 clutch being more than just PIS. He sounds like he really understands F1 working while some others just let the machine do it and the results of that speak for themselves. To this day I talk clutchs to pros and they don't know what marcels do or set-up height importance they just swap parts. They know how to change clutchs but not understand how they work. So its 2012 and you can buy a leonardo at great price. By 2020 will you be able to buy access at all?

 

Fortunately, I will retire by then, probably still work on the 60s Brits though, LOL

 

Without wishing to hijack this long & winding thread I believe some of 'em are already at that point. For example, and this may have changed now, I recall Rifledriver saying he couldn't do 458's for this reason - You have (had?) to put the car online to Italy before you could do pretty much anything more than a pad change.......

But can they, nowadays, learn their craft without these gizmos? We know the Leo/SDx's are mandatory for many tasks, but once (not when!) they go fully online what can the indy do? Unless some guv'mint agency forces 'em to provide access for the indy's, they're gonna be hosed?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Ian,

Again trying not to highjack but here is a late blurb from a friend that I have pertaining to your question:

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012, I attended and presented a testimony at the public hearing on the Massachusetts Right To Repair Ballot Initiative. The hearing was held by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure. The hearing was very well attended and lasted about 4 hours. The room was very crowded with local Massachusetts auto repair people as well as many representatives of parts shops such as AutoZone.

The testimony from the supporters of Right To Repair initiative emphasized the lack of information available to independent repair shops, the higher price and longer service times for dealers, and the charge that manufacturers are withholding repair information so that you have to go back to the dealer. Several owners and local repairmen told stories of not being able to repair a vehicle because they could not get the information even from dealer existing manufacturer web sites and how it cost several thousand dollars when the owner went to the dealer.

The proponents also had several witnesses from the aftermarket tool people testify that the SAE J2543 standard was needed, was the correct standard, and that manufacturers could adhere to the interface standard with little additional costs. They also had a team of lawyers testify that there were no issues regarding trade secrets or intellectual property concerns as a result of the ballot language.

The Alliance organized the opposition testimony. That testimony includes Alliance and auto company experts who indicated that repair information is currently available to independent facilities, the problems with the SAE standard, as well as other objections to the ballot. Auto dealers also testified as well as some independent repair shops explaining that the information is available, and about the investments needed to properly complete repairs.

EMA testified along with a representative of the Motorcycle Manufacturers and RV Manufacturers. We explained the differences between our industries and autos, the fact that we do not use the SAE standard or do not have the OBD systems and information required by the ballot. Cummins Northeast also testified with us, and they explained their system and network of repair facilities, the training and information they supply, and also some of the problems with the auto-based proposed initiative.

My take on the hearing is that the legislators are confused and somewhat frustrated with this whole issue. One side is saying that the necessary information is not available, and the other side is saying all the information (for autos) is already available. One side claiming that the SAE standard is great and already being used by the auto companies, and the other side saying it could not be used and will stagnate innovation. I did not see any movement at this hearing, and so there is no definitive outcome. The chairman of the Committee indicated that their hope and desire is that the two sides and come together and agree on a compromise.

Of course, one of the political realities is that the legislators know that polling shows about 80% approval rating for the initiative, which is understandable since the public is being asked whether they would like to see information needed to repair their car available to all repair shops so they can get their car repaired for less money. The issue also places local shops and voters in their district against out-of-state car companies. Still, some of their questions indicated they are somewhat reluctant to have MA determine an industry repair information standard that should be implemented on a national basis.

Regarding EMA issues, it was clear from the hearing that the proposed initiative would definitely capture and apply to nonroad equipment in the state. The Right-to Repair proponents even had a local contactor testify about he cannot get the information to repair his excavators and that when he had the dealer do the repairs, it put him out of business for a week and cost several thousand dollars to repair. So, there is clear intent to have the initiative also apply to nonroad equipment.

I believe there was a recognition on the part of committee members that heavy-duty trucks, motor cycles, RVs, nonroad equipment, etc, is very different. I believe that they would be willing to cut us out of any bill. However, there is nothing they can do unless the auto interests agree on a compromise so that the ballot initiative is pulled and a legislative solution can be passed.

The Alliance is going to let the dust settle on this hearing before determining next steps. I will keep in contact with them and will continue to work with them on this issue.

 

Thanks for that - It sounds like it's still the cluster **** I remember from a few years back!

Cheers,
Ian

 

and what ever happened to the bare bones "owners" version that was discussed earlier in this thread ?

 

Nick, thanks for the update. VERY interested in the LD4 as an interim supplement to my factory SD3. The leonardo seems to be developing into a fantastic tool..,

 

Thanks for the update Nick, I'm looking forward to having a completed tool.

 

Nick- There is a market for single car software or even an SD2 version that would be much simplified. Any movement in those areas? No updates would be required, but Accinni could sell quite a few at a reasonable price. Maybe even just software and cables that could be housed on a laptop.

 

Absolutely!

 

Has Accinni been focusing mostly on these new offerings or have they made additional headway with the SD2/3 softwares that are still being developed?

 

Thanks Nick, I will fire off an email in regards to that.

Do you know if this new Lambo package is going to replace the current software loaded into the Leonardo, or will it alos be a software update to the current package in the Leonardo?

 

What is the pricing for the Cliente tool?